9 posts from June 2007

I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch'. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use): it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'.

Alvin Plantinga: Warranted Christian Belief

Hat Tip:  Brian Trapp

• There's some interesting discussion at Dangerous Idea of the question: "Are moral atheists borrowing their moral capital from Christianity?"  Talk centers around a quote from Gary DeMar's essay Why Atheists are Theocrats (Biblical Worldview Magazine).
• The inquiring minds at Fides Quaerens Intellectum want to know:  Can you have faith in something you know?
• At Talking Philosophy Magazine's blog, Jullian  Baggini's satirical digest of Ayer's Language Truth and Logic is both amusing and thought provoking. While there, take a look at Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, Descartes’ Meditations, Aristotle’s Ethics, and Plato’s Republic.

If you're looking for free WiFi, check out this site. It lists locations (by state) that offer free high speed wireless internet access to their customers and guests and/or the general public.

33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

Over on The Paleo Blog, George has introduced an upcoming book by NYT bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. titled 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. If you are a lover of history who loathes revisionism and doesn't mind controversy, this could be the book for you.  I agree with George, this looks like a good read. 

Hat tip: George. 

P.S. to George: I'm not intending stealing your thunder.  I would have made my remarks at your place but comments are disabled.

You Are Incredibly Logical
Move over Spock - you're the new master of logic. You think rationally, clearly, and quickly. A seasoned problem solver, your mind is like a computer!

How Logical Are You?

Heh...  Move over, Spock.  Right!